Re: Not religion but supernaturalism
- From: "Ron Peterson" <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 Mar 2006 13:56:21 -0800
Son of Cormack wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1141929884.544826.282940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I don't read it that way. You seem to be saying that the morals and
precepts of religion have been verified by human science.
Nothing could be further from what I am saying.
Our morality and Religion must be based upon Human Science rooted in the
objective assessment of the observable, testable Universe.
Religion does not have to be superstitious. If this supernatural aspect can
be stripped from it it will become the most powerful uniting force Humanity
has ever seen.
Yes, religion doesn't have to be superstitious, but taking away the
superstition doesn't make it good. Look at Objectivism, S*ology and
PETA for examples of where non-superstitious religion fails to be a
force for good.
We all know this deep down. How else can we explain the demise of the Theist
religions.
I haven't seen their demise.
A new Religious Humanism is needed.
Humanism doesn't need a priesthood.
--
Ron
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Not religion but supernaturalism
- From: Son of Cormack
- Re: Not religion but supernaturalism
- References:
- Not religion but supernaturalism
- From: Son of Cormack
- Re: Not religion but supernaturalism
- From: Ron Peterson
- Re: Not religion but supernaturalism
- From: Son of Cormack
- Re: Not religion but supernaturalism
- From: Ron Peterson
- Re: Not religion but supernaturalism
- From: Son of Cormack
- Not religion but supernaturalism
- Prev by Date: Re: Not religion but supernaturalism
- Next by Date: Re: Not religion but supernaturalism
- Previous by thread: Re: Not religion but supernaturalism
- Next by thread: Re: Not religion but supernaturalism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|