-
Features
Survey
- Thread starter DLH
- Start date
Grew up Christian, family changed to Unitarian when I was about ten and then became an atheist when I realized it didn't make any sense.
Wouldn't like to see it destroyed, but think it would be nice if it became the societal equivalent of Star Trek fans where people can take it as seriously as they like on their own and have their own little conventions and gatherings but have essentially zero political influence or impact on other members of society outside of their group.
Wouldn't like to see it destroyed, but think it would be nice if it became the societal equivalent of Star Trek fans where people can take it as seriously as they like on their own and have their own little conventions and gatherings but have essentially zero political influence or impact on other members of society outside of their group.
I grew up atheist, though in a practical non-militant fashion. My dad's family were unbelievers and my mom had grown up religious and rejected it. I was an atheist for 27 years until I picked up a Bible and studied it intensely for 6 months, then becoming a believer, though rejecting completely organized religion. I would like to see all organized religion completely destroyed and am pleased that according to my learning of the Bible, it will be destroyed. Though until then the Star Trek idea sounds like a good one.
One further question if you don't mind. What made you realize that it didn't make any sense? Were you introduced to science or public education or did you just say to yourself, the obvious, which is this stuff doesn't make sense. Did you see hypocrisy in the church?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Malintent
Veteran Member
What is your hypothesis regarding the distribution of responses? I am startled by the implication in the phrasing of your question that there is some motive by atheists to "destroy religion". What does that even mean?
Are you an atheist that was once Christian.. and if yes, do you believe that the public school system should be destroyed?
GenesisNemesis
I am a proud hedonist.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 4,570
- Location
- California
- Basic Beliefs
- Secular Humanist, Scientific Skepticism, Strong Atheism
Raised Jewishly, but not raised Jewish.
Quite a few. I was one.
Speaking of religion in terms of destroying it shows a pathetic lack of understanding about what religion is and about human beings in general.
Religion is an artifact of human thought and activity. Yes, it can possibly be destroyed in the same way art or science or literature or social structures or any of the myriad examples of human created cultural institutions and systems can be destroyed, namely, through violence and all manner of inhumane actions. Major natural disasters can destroy these things as well. As cultures have been lost to the world over time or through sudden upheaval, so can religion disappear. Usually, though, it just changes and morphs over time and with new information, events, and environmental changes.*
The source of religion is human minds and culture in constant interplay with the environment and existing knowledge and technology.
Education and exposure to non- or other-religious culture and ideas are the most effective "killers" of religion. I think it's more accurate to say "changers" of religion.
Art reflects openness of ideas and the transient nature of symbols, science reflects intelligent inquiry, and religion reflects the ineffable and the drive to seek understanding of our existence as well as our cognitive pitfalls of fear, ignorance, and desire for certainty.
Religion changes when minds and cultures change. Religion is ideology, and ideology, while a created thing, can work back upon us in powerful ways, good, bad, or neutral. To believe that religion is the source of your goodness and deny the fact that your religion is your own creation (through life experience and community culture in constant interaction with your brain) is to effectively relinquish your conscience to something blind and dumb, yet powerfully influential. In this world of violence and inhumanity, to hand your conscience to anything or anyone other than yourself is irresponsible and infantile.
If you want to change the influence of religion in the world, promote education, promote exposure to new ideas and other cultures, and encourage questioning. Some of us choose to question specific religious beliefs and challenge religious authority and influence. We hold thought leaders and anyone of influence or authority accountable for the beliefs they spread. Not everyone has the stomach or inclination for dissent, and a lot of people face real dangers in doing so. If you can't or don't want to challenge the stupidity that runs rampant through the social and cognitive mechanisms we call religion, then at the very least question your own beliefs and motivations, and mitigate your own contribution to the stupidity and lack of awareness in the world.
*The belief that one's religion is absolute and never changes is one of the more amusing aspects of religious ignorance. Group cultures and individuals' beliefs change over time. Change is a fact of human nature and any attempt to make religion seem unchanging and permanent is laughably stupid, and often results in ideological disease.
dystopian
Veteran Member
I have never been Christian. Or religious. When I was around 10 or 12 or so, I discovered to my surprise that churches weren't just regular community centers in a weird looking building. When I discovered that Santa wasn't real, I assumed that god wasn't either since there was no real functional difference between them except that Santa had physical evidence for his existence in the form of getting presents. I was at first skeptical, then confused, and finally horrified, to learn that some adults weren't pretending to believe in god. Nonetheless, religion was barely on my radar as a child; in most of the Netherlands religion holds exactly zero relevance; and on top of that religion is the sort of thing that people tend to keep themselves; it's a private matter and not something that people feel inclined to force on others or even talk about.
I had one friend in school who was Christian, but since neither he nor his family ever mentioned religion in any real way other than mention once or twice in passing that they were catholic, I had only the vaguest comprehension of what it meant. My first real encounter with organized religion came in the form of consuming an interview with this smug and arrogant American evangelist who was organizing an international evangelist organization and who'd picked Amsterdam to hold it. He explained they chose Amsterdam because it was the modern day Sodom or Gomorrah; full of sinners and unbelievers. Then he proceeded to tell us with absolute authority that atheists were all criminals and drug addicts anyway, and if they weren't yet they would be. One might understand why this ignorant viewpoint annoyed me: going to a foreign country to preach, telling the locals they're all drug addicts and criminals because they don't worship Jesus? Yeah, not the most effective way to convert people.
"Destroyed" is an inappropriate term meant to evoke an emotional reaction. I don't want to see religion destroyed; I want to see ignorance and superstition vanish; replaced with knowledge. I want to see a human race united through an objective and scientific pursuit of knowledge; rather than divided through archaic religions that claim exclusivity to the truth and which demand obedience or else. To me, religion is a vestigial concept of our tribal past that now serves only as a chain around our feet. It holds us back. But do I want it destroyed? No, that implies active violence. I simply want to see it vanish because people realize it is no longer needed.
I had one friend in school who was Christian, but since neither he nor his family ever mentioned religion in any real way other than mention once or twice in passing that they were catholic, I had only the vaguest comprehension of what it meant. My first real encounter with organized religion came in the form of consuming an interview with this smug and arrogant American evangelist who was organizing an international evangelist organization and who'd picked Amsterdam to hold it. He explained they chose Amsterdam because it was the modern day Sodom or Gomorrah; full of sinners and unbelievers. Then he proceeded to tell us with absolute authority that atheists were all criminals and drug addicts anyway, and if they weren't yet they would be. One might understand why this ignorant viewpoint annoyed me: going to a foreign country to preach, telling the locals they're all drug addicts and criminals because they don't worship Jesus? Yeah, not the most effective way to convert people.
"Destroyed" is an inappropriate term meant to evoke an emotional reaction. I don't want to see religion destroyed; I want to see ignorance and superstition vanish; replaced with knowledge. I want to see a human race united through an objective and scientific pursuit of knowledge; rather than divided through archaic religions that claim exclusivity to the truth and which demand obedience or else. To me, religion is a vestigial concept of our tribal past that now serves only as a chain around our feet. It holds us back. But do I want it destroyed? No, that implies active violence. I simply want to see it vanish because people realize it is no longer needed.
Barbarian
Member
As if we had a way to tell Christian from 'Christian'...
I was baptized, taught about God and Heaven, and to pray before going to sleep, but in a rather bored manner, as if it didn't really matter at all. I was certainly an atheist by my eighth birthday, because that's when I first had a - rather mild - argument with another kid who wasn't, and by that time I stopped praying in the evenings altogether, with nobody caring about it. We've never been to church the way people usually go - I remember a single church event, the wedding of my uncle. The indifference of my parents may have been the result of an uneasy ceasefire, as they belonged to different denominations, which stifled all religious activity in the family because it was understood that religion is a taboo topic unless you are positively sure all present belong to the same denomination - this was so in the entire society, a result of centuries-long bloody interdenominational violence culminating in the earlier Communist assault on religion. So was I ever a Christian, or merely a 'Christian'? I'd say the latter, because since then I came to the firm conviction that there's a single common creed of all Christians, namely that Christians are superior to other people. Not all Christians believe in a Trinity, in a Hell, a Heaven, some don't even believe in God; but they all either think or can be cornered to realize they think that they are superior to the rest of us by the mere virtue of being a Christian. I've never had that attitude, so I never was a Christian, only a 'Christian', and even that only for a short time.
I am a bit hesitant to use the term 'religion' without a clear definition, but let's for now use it in the meaning of 'Abrahamic religions'. That being said, I do not actually want to see religion destroyed, although I'd be happy if it happened; it's only that I cannot imagine anything capable of doing so being any less terrifying than a theocracy. Communism, for instance, did a rather good job at it, not in its early stages of frantic violence but in its later stages of threatening believers with mere inconveniences instead of death and destruction, and only failed to eradicate religion completely because it did not have enough time to do so, thank the IPU. I do, however, want to see religion humiliated, cut back to size, stripped of all of its privileges and historical myths. This may in fact be tantamount to destroying religion, but I want religionists to say so. I am particulary keen on the historical myth part, because I'm tired all the repeated attempts to portray Christianity as a positive force instead of a blind parasite.
I was baptized, taught about God and Heaven, and to pray before going to sleep, but in a rather bored manner, as if it didn't really matter at all. I was certainly an atheist by my eighth birthday, because that's when I first had a - rather mild - argument with another kid who wasn't, and by that time I stopped praying in the evenings altogether, with nobody caring about it. We've never been to church the way people usually go - I remember a single church event, the wedding of my uncle. The indifference of my parents may have been the result of an uneasy ceasefire, as they belonged to different denominations, which stifled all religious activity in the family because it was understood that religion is a taboo topic unless you are positively sure all present belong to the same denomination - this was so in the entire society, a result of centuries-long bloody interdenominational violence culminating in the earlier Communist assault on religion. So was I ever a Christian, or merely a 'Christian'? I'd say the latter, because since then I came to the firm conviction that there's a single common creed of all Christians, namely that Christians are superior to other people. Not all Christians believe in a Trinity, in a Hell, a Heaven, some don't even believe in God; but they all either think or can be cornered to realize they think that they are superior to the rest of us by the mere virtue of being a Christian. I've never had that attitude, so I never was a Christian, only a 'Christian', and even that only for a short time.
I am a bit hesitant to use the term 'religion' without a clear definition, but let's for now use it in the meaning of 'Abrahamic religions'. That being said, I do not actually want to see religion destroyed, although I'd be happy if it happened; it's only that I cannot imagine anything capable of doing so being any less terrifying than a theocracy. Communism, for instance, did a rather good job at it, not in its early stages of frantic violence but in its later stages of threatening believers with mere inconveniences instead of death and destruction, and only failed to eradicate religion completely because it did not have enough time to do so, thank the IPU. I do, however, want to see religion humiliated, cut back to size, stripped of all of its privileges and historical myths. This may in fact be tantamount to destroying religion, but I want religionists to say so. I am particulary keen on the historical myth part, because I'm tired all the repeated attempts to portray Christianity as a positive force instead of a blind parasite.
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
I grew up mainstream Protestant. In my college years I shifted towards, what now would be called independent evangelical churches/theology, as I thought they were going for a truer understanding of the Bible. After about a dozen years, the cracks started forming.
FWIW, I don’t need or necessarily “want” religion destroyed. I have no problem with everyday people that believe in their particular god/theology; as I believe in live and let live generally. I do get annoyed by pushy religionists that think that their theology/dogma should be imposed upon the laws of my country.
Well, I grew up mainstream Protestant in a family that went to church, but didn't talk about the truly important things in life. I guess it was too scary, never have really figured it out. We didn't about personal faith, sex, and such. Faith was somewhat impersonal, and more about social interaction and today. I saw, in my youthful teenage zeal, what I thought was hypocrisy within my church. As I went into college years I tilting towards a Bible church, since they obviously were trying to be more right with god.
That worked for a while. However, I had never really figured out how to make some of the OT grand miracles fit with reality, but I really didn't' know that much ancient history, so I could let it slide. The rest of the problems with xianity, were covered over with the typical blinders of belief in the guiding hand of god. One time at a small study group we watched a video/"documentary" that tried to explain Noah's Flood, and how it could have worked. It's funny how this movie probably did more to destroy my faith in the long run than anything else. This made me want to understand it better, being the analytical type that I am. For now I thought I had concrete evidence of a viable explanation. So I started looking at some of the ideas presented, and wanted to find detailed work about it. Alas, the reality was it was mostly straw men with nary a shred of actual scientific evidence. But this now left me with questions about intellectual honesty of Xian's. I guess I ignored it for a while, but the little snippets at church that even touched upon ancient times, or the characters of the grand miracles, would force me to think about it. So I finally decided I needed to figure it out for myself. And I started reading the apologetics for the OT, specifically the history 1,000 BC and later. And I started reading archeology of the Mideast. The more I read, the more questions of faith I had. This was going the wrong direction, and was greatly bothering me. So I read more, prayed more. It just got worse. This progression took around 1-1.5 years, since I was trying to still have a life. Finally I was at my wits end, and went to the preacher and talked to him about my crisis of faith. I also talked allot with a professor at a Bible college. So I read some of their suggested reading. Damn it felt like I was in college again, I had more books than I'd ever imagined. But it was weird, I could no longer read the apologetics without questioning their intellectual honesty, nor without comparing it to the well-articulated counter arguments that they wouldn't mention. Arguments like "Lier, lunatic, or Lord" became laughable. At this point I had read the liberal mainstream attempts to keep it together, archeology, agnostic and atheistic arguments. The preacher was kind of worthless (but nice), he had to admit that I already knew more history than he did, and it was obvious he couldn't keep up on the apologetic arguments. The Bible professor was interesting, but it was just better intellectual spins, not reality. Though he was a literalist/inerrantist, he agreed that the Flood had to be further back in time to not be a lie. So he had it out 20k-30k years. Unfortunately, we went different directions, because I would have liked to have heard him try to explain how that could work.
Anyway, with ideas of an inerrant canon in the trash can, I was still trying to figure out if I could find a faith in Xian modernism. It sure felt like god had abandoned me in my quest. One thing that came to mind several times, was the verse that says god will keep you from being tested beyond what you can bear. Right. With reading Joseph Flavious, Eusebius, Gnostic texts, Augustine, and specifically the history circa 200 BCE - 400 AD, I found I could not accept the stories of a savior taking on flesh and dying for our sins to be a reality, nor did I find it validated by OT prophecy. And the trinity is so damn convoluted. There were too many contradictions from the magical birth to the magical resurrection. There were too many things that didn't make sense regarding the Gospels and history. It began to make more sense that this was based on a heretical Jewish sage that was probably killed by the Pharoses. C.S. Lewis found a way to admit the grand miracles to be fabulous, and have the bible start becoming real around the time of King Solomon. I found the same type of problems throughout the canon, and no reason to assume it clearer by the time of the NT. It seemed to much like wishful thinking.
So in finality, I found I could live with being agnostic. I feel like I know enough about other faith systems that I don't need to grab onto any as a life vest. It's still a beautiful world. I no longer have to think we are all depraved people. There's good and bad ( or ying an yang). As a whole people can be, and mostly are decent. And as group we can be lead down some dark paths. I find that things that help the mind pause, to think, to rest, et.al. like yoga or meditation are probably a naturalist way to touch upon some of the aiding things that some parts of religion offer.
FWIW, I don’t need or necessarily “want” religion destroyed. I have no problem with everyday people that believe in their particular god/theology; as I believe in live and let live generally. I do get annoyed by pushy religionists that think that their theology/dogma should be imposed upon the laws of my country.
Below is what I wrote before on the old site relative to your question…
Well, I grew up mainstream Protestant in a family that went to church, but didn't talk about the truly important things in life. I guess it was too scary, never have really figured it out. We didn't about personal faith, sex, and such. Faith was somewhat impersonal, and more about social interaction and today. I saw, in my youthful teenage zeal, what I thought was hypocrisy within my church. As I went into college years I tilting towards a Bible church, since they obviously were trying to be more right with god.
That worked for a while. However, I had never really figured out how to make some of the OT grand miracles fit with reality, but I really didn't' know that much ancient history, so I could let it slide. The rest of the problems with xianity, were covered over with the typical blinders of belief in the guiding hand of god. One time at a small study group we watched a video/"documentary" that tried to explain Noah's Flood, and how it could have worked. It's funny how this movie probably did more to destroy my faith in the long run than anything else. This made me want to understand it better, being the analytical type that I am. For now I thought I had concrete evidence of a viable explanation. So I started looking at some of the ideas presented, and wanted to find detailed work about it. Alas, the reality was it was mostly straw men with nary a shred of actual scientific evidence. But this now left me with questions about intellectual honesty of Xian's. I guess I ignored it for a while, but the little snippets at church that even touched upon ancient times, or the characters of the grand miracles, would force me to think about it. So I finally decided I needed to figure it out for myself. And I started reading the apologetics for the OT, specifically the history 1,000 BC and later. And I started reading archeology of the Mideast. The more I read, the more questions of faith I had. This was going the wrong direction, and was greatly bothering me. So I read more, prayed more. It just got worse. This progression took around 1-1.5 years, since I was trying to still have a life. Finally I was at my wits end, and went to the preacher and talked to him about my crisis of faith. I also talked allot with a professor at a Bible college. So I read some of their suggested reading. Damn it felt like I was in college again, I had more books than I'd ever imagined. But it was weird, I could no longer read the apologetics without questioning their intellectual honesty, nor without comparing it to the well-articulated counter arguments that they wouldn't mention. Arguments like "Lier, lunatic, or Lord" became laughable. At this point I had read the liberal mainstream attempts to keep it together, archeology, agnostic and atheistic arguments. The preacher was kind of worthless (but nice), he had to admit that I already knew more history than he did, and it was obvious he couldn't keep up on the apologetic arguments. The Bible professor was interesting, but it was just better intellectual spins, not reality. Though he was a literalist/inerrantist, he agreed that the Flood had to be further back in time to not be a lie. So he had it out 20k-30k years. Unfortunately, we went different directions, because I would have liked to have heard him try to explain how that could work.
Anyway, with ideas of an inerrant canon in the trash can, I was still trying to figure out if I could find a faith in Xian modernism. It sure felt like god had abandoned me in my quest. One thing that came to mind several times, was the verse that says god will keep you from being tested beyond what you can bear. Right. With reading Joseph Flavious, Eusebius, Gnostic texts, Augustine, and specifically the history circa 200 BCE - 400 AD, I found I could not accept the stories of a savior taking on flesh and dying for our sins to be a reality, nor did I find it validated by OT prophecy. And the trinity is so damn convoluted. There were too many contradictions from the magical birth to the magical resurrection. There were too many things that didn't make sense regarding the Gospels and history. It began to make more sense that this was based on a heretical Jewish sage that was probably killed by the Pharoses. C.S. Lewis found a way to admit the grand miracles to be fabulous, and have the bible start becoming real around the time of King Solomon. I found the same type of problems throughout the canon, and no reason to assume it clearer by the time of the NT. It seemed to much like wishful thinking.
So in finality, I found I could live with being agnostic. I feel like I know enough about other faith systems that I don't need to grab onto any as a life vest. It's still a beautiful world. I no longer have to think we are all depraved people. There's good and bad ( or ying an yang). As a whole people can be, and mostly are decent. And as group we can be lead down some dark paths. I find that things that help the mind pause, to think, to rest, et.al. like yoga or meditation are probably a naturalist way to touch upon some of the aiding things that some parts of religion offer.
Really? You do realize that I'm not the only one who sees your responses, aren't you?
i don't believe you are that difficult, but nevertheless, for clarification.
How many were Christian, and of those answering yes, I was a Christian, would you like to see religion destroyed. The same question is applied to those answering no. No matter how many.
Sajara
Member
Grew up roman catholic. Now an atheist. Don't want religion destroyed, but I do want them to stop trying to make laws based on their unfounded beliefs.
I was never religious and grew up in a largely irreligious household. I had been to church and Sunday school a handful of times, and it's possible I believed or parroted some things I learned there at a very young age -- I cannot recall quite that far back. I do know by grade three I did not believe in gods or an afterlife.
Do I want to see all religions destroyed? I don't care. In terms of controlling and manipulating people, religious authority seems to be just a tool. It's an exceptionally powerful tool, but a tool all the same. Or to use a slightly different metaphor, I think destroying religion would be treating a symptom rather than curing a disease. I don't know exactly what the disease is, but there is this point where social conformism goes beyond just wanting to have a sense of community and belonging, and because something stagnant, aggressive, controlling, and oppressive. Whether that behaviour comes in the form of a religion or perhaps staunch, unflinching nationalism isn't that important of a distinction to me in principle. In practice, perhaps, the latter is a bit less powerful than the former.
Do I want to see all religions destroyed? I don't care. In terms of controlling and manipulating people, religious authority seems to be just a tool. It's an exceptionally powerful tool, but a tool all the same. Or to use a slightly different metaphor, I think destroying religion would be treating a symptom rather than curing a disease. I don't know exactly what the disease is, but there is this point where social conformism goes beyond just wanting to have a sense of community and belonging, and because something stagnant, aggressive, controlling, and oppressive. Whether that behaviour comes in the form of a religion or perhaps staunch, unflinching nationalism isn't that important of a distinction to me in principle. In practice, perhaps, the latter is a bit less powerful than the former.
Sajara
Member
Keith is being a little pedantic...but he is making a good point. Part of online culture is being able to state what you mean precisely. You asked for a number, like 24 of us...but what you meant was 'Were you a Christian prior to becoming an Atheist, yes or no?'...
If you haven't noticed yet, atheists tend to be pedantic (myself included). I think it has to do with our search for the truth.
If you haven't noticed yet, atheists tend to be pedantic (myself included). I think it has to do with our search for the truth.
I don't recall a specific instance where I came to that realization. Just somewhere along the line, I realized it was all dumb and went on living my life without particularly caring about it one way or the other.
Then in my mid-20s, I moved down to Atlanta and was exposed to a society where people actually took the bullshit seriously, as opposed to it just kind of being something that was around and not overly important. That got me looking into the whys behind it and more precise reasons as to why it was dumb as opposed to just considering it generically nonsensical.
Prior to that, I'd never really given the church enough thought to pay attention to any hypocrisy related to it.
Uh . . . Green. No! I don't have one?
In a Sam Harris sort of way. I have encountered a few atheists who would, like myself, a theist, see organized religion end. Religious thinking and devotion to theological pursuit a thing of the past. Everyone should wise up, more or less, so that science, technology . . . knowledge can run it's natural course.
No, I'm a Bible believer who was once atheist and yes, I do believe that the public school system should be destroyed in a similar fashion. Though I should point out that I don't believe that religious beliefs or education should be eradicated, only that organized religion and public education are really detrimental to those honest pursuits. I personally think that if there were a great global revolution which eradicated the monetary exchange, simply done away with money, that religion, politics, and commerce as we know it would end, and science and technology could provide for the needs of every man, woman and child on the earth without enslaving the people in debt, starving the people in political domination and corruption, destruction of the environment through pollution, division of the people in social class struggle nationalism and racism, and religious deception and political control resulting in ignorance, intolerance, and xenophobia.
So, you were Jewish in a traditional sense without the religion completely? Did you celebrate Christmas and Easter?
You are right. My apologies, I should have been more specific. Consider organized religion, rather than merely religion itself as that being considered.
Your point, taken with your footnote, is very well put. I agree and appreciate your having introduced it into the discussion.
Excellent! I wish that I could articulate it as well as you.
Hmmm. This thread is a work in progress, of course. I really should have specified "organized religion." I think that religion does all of those things, but organized religion is corrupts those understandings, or at least the potential for those understandings. Also, here, I think maybe you tread a thin line between that corruption in your previous remarks regarding change. Organized religion, over time, always transmogrifies the truth. No religion has ever remained true, even unto itself.
So, then, is religion a reflection of ultimate decay. As a noun ideology is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic and political theory and policy. In an archaic sense it is the science of ideas, the study of their origin and nature. Is religion most likely a recycling of cultural, traditional, and social ideas producing a stagnant paradigm?
Perhaps you should define what you mean by religion? I think of it in it's most basic sense as a strict adherence to a set of principles and beliefs, so I would agree with the first part of your comment regarding the source, but question the latter part regarding denial of religion as ones own creation inasmuch as that principles and beliefs can be adopted from or greatly influenced by an outside source other than your own creation. I think you alluded to that earlier when you said: "religion reflects the ineffable and the drive to seek understanding of our existence as well as our cognitive pitfalls of fear, ignorance, and desire for certainty."
Hear! Hear!
How should it change, though, given that it quite possibly instituted a finite change from conception? Should it appease the cultural developments which may have originated in opposition of a changing culture in the first place, or in acheiving the desired changes should it then abandon them?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Actually, i kinda thought DLH was setting up a trap. People would answer the question he SEEMED to be asking, then he'd rail against skeptics who projected things into apologist posts rather than read what was actually there.
I guess i gave him too much credit, there.