From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:59:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.165111.26662@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>:
>: >How does one decide which religious beliefs are "good" ones?  Yours, I
>: >assume, is one of the "good" ones that deserves to be defended, while
>: >religions that include reincarnation shouldn't be defended?
>: 
>: I never said that anything should or should not be defended, only
>: what *I* choose to defend.  Your bias is really showing in your
>: posting!  Only *you* can determine which religious beliefs *you*
>: should agree with.  Because you can't make up your mind, doesn't
>: mean that everyone elses religious beliefs are bogus or
>: necessarily superstition.
>:
>
>Yes, my bias is showing -- I have made up my mind (I thought it was
>pretty obvious) and think that all religion is bogus.  As for
>religious beliefs not being superstition, look up the definition of
>superstition:
>
> "Any belief or attitude, based on fear or ignorance, that is
>  inconsistant with the known laws of science..."
>
>Sounds like religion to me.

I'm sorry that it fits your definition of religion.

You know, this apparent confusion of superstition versus religion reminds me
of this situation.  Suppose you ask me what the difference is between a
coat and a hat.  "No problem", I say.  "A coat is defined as an outer garment
covering, at least the upper part of the body.  A hat is defined as a shaped
covering for the head, usually with a crown and brim.  These definitions were
taken right from the dictionary.  Does this make sense to you?"

"No", you reply.  "It appears that both a coat and a hat are some
kind of covering on the upper part of the body which makes it very
hard to distinguish between the two.  I therefore tell you that a
coat IS a hat because I can't really tell them apart." 

Hmmm.....

>
>: >Why can't you be nice to and cooperatre with people because you have
>: >thought about it and decided it is benificial to everybody involved?
>: >Why do you need some supernatural being to tell you what all of the
>: >other social animals in the world have figured out?
>: 
>: Again you are reading things into my statement that I never said.  When
>: did I say that religion is a prerequsite for obeying the law?  Please
>: reread my comments again in light of your previous comments.
>
>You said:
>
>    For example, believing that this is the one and only life might
>    tend to make me more selfish of myself having no care or
>    consideration for anyone else.  I might even have fun breaking
>    every social law in the book.
>
>I took that to mean that without a religious belief in some sort of
>afterlife there was no reason to obey laws or be nice to people.  My
>apologies if I misinterpreted, but I've heard many people argue that
>without religion there is no basis for ethics or morality.  Your
>statement sounded like that arguement to me.

That statement you just quoted was taken out of context.  Notice the
first words "For example".  What was this an example of?  Perhaps, you
might want to go back and read that transaction to see why I was never
advocating your conclusion.

>
>: >: BTW, I don't believe that your typical person in the US who
>: >: believes in reincarnation is poor at all. That explanation works fine
>: >: for third world contries, but one must dig deeper for an explanation
>: >: in the US.  Perhaps there is a spiritual hunger out there?
>: >
>: >What is "spiritual hunger"?  A need to belong to a social group?  The
>: >need to feel that your life isn't meaningless?  Fine, join a club,
>: >join the Peace Corps, join the army, take up a hobby, have a family,
>: >whatever.  Or admit that your life _is_ meaningless, mine is!  I like
>: >my life just fine, but I have no illusions that there is some great
>: >meaning or purpose for it.
>: 
>: There are plenty of people who are in the Peace Corps or army, have hobbies
>: or families and still have their spiritual needs met by religion.  I think
>: you are confusing social needs with spiritual needs.  
>
>Could be. The churches and religions that I am familiar with seemed to
>be social organizations, most of the people who participated did so
>for social reasons -- they certainly had no familiarity with the
>theology of their churches.  Perhaps I've not met anybody with
>"genuine religious beliefs."

Do you really mean to tell me that you've *never* met anyone with
a genuine love of God and an appreciation of their faith?  You've
never met anyone who had familiarity with the theology of their
church? If that is the case, then this is a shame... 

>
>--
>Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I have many CHARTS and
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic